Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Glencore Grain Rotterdam Bv and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 143/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 March 1996 before Nazareth VP, Bokhary JA, Liu JA.
Civil appeal – costs – taxation basis – party and party basis vs indemnity or common fund basis – deterrence against opportunistic attempts to circumvent the parties' chosen method of dispute resolution – security for costs – money paid into court – release to successful party's solicitors. The plaintiff was wholly successful before Findlay J and the defendants were wholly unsuccessful in the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendants sought indemnity or at least common fund costs, arguing that such an order would deter opportunistic attempts to circumvent the parties' chosen method of dispute resolution. The court held that this would be an extension of the established general practice and declined to make that extension in the present case, as the position was not sufficiently clear prior to the court's decision of November 24, 1995 to justify an exceptional order; the court left open the possibility that the next case of this kind might warrant such a step. The defendants were therefore confined to the usual party and party basis for the costs before Findlay J and of the appeal, and were left to pursue an arbitration award representing the difference between taxed and actual court costs. The court further ordered that the $287,009 paid into court by the defendants pursuant to the order of Mayo JA dated September 27, 1995 as security for the plaintiff's costs of the appeal, together with interest, be released forthwith to the defendants' solicitors, the plaintiff's refusal to join in securing such release being wholly inexplicable. The costs of the day were also awarded to the defendants on a party and party basis, there being no opposition from the plaintiff.
Legal issues: Whether indemnity or common fund costs should be ordered as a deterrent against opportunistic circumvention of chosen dispute resolution method
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; defendants awarded costs on the usual party and party basis; money in court ($287,009 plus interest) ordered to be released forthwith to the defendants' solicitors; costs of the day also awarded to the defendants on a party and party basis.
Cited by 26 cases
|
CACV000143/1995 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1995, No. 143
------------------- Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Bokhary and Liu, JJ.A. in Court Date of Hearing: 27 March 1996 Date of Judgment: 27 March 1996 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- Bokhary, J.A.: 1. This is the judgment of the Court. The plaintiff was wholly successful before Findlay J and wholly unsuccessful in the appeal before us. 2. Plainly, the defendants must have the costs before Findlay J and of the appeal before us. 3. We do not think that, as things stand, we should order that any of those costs be taxed on any basis other than the usual party and party basis. 4. A number of suggested reasons why we ought to direct costs to be taxed on a common fund or even indemnity basis have been ably advanced by Mr Scott for the defendants. We reject all of those reasons; and there is only one which we think requires specific mention. Mr Scott submits that indemnity costs or at least common fund costs should he ordered as a deterrence against - and we take this from his skeleton argument - "opportunistic attempts to circumvent the parties' chosen method of dispute resolution". 5. That would be an extension of the established general practice. And we do not think that such an extension ought to be made - at least not in the present case. But there may come a time when that extension ought to be followed. Indeed, the next case of this kind may be an occasion for such a step, given our decision of November 24, 1995. But we do not feel able to say that the position was so clear prior to that decision as to justify indemnity or even common fund costs being ordered in the present case. 6. In the present case, therefore, the defendants must be left to, if so advised, pursue an arbitration award representing the difference between taxed and actual court costs. 7. That leaves, apart from the costs of today to which we will come after hearing counsel on it separately, the $287,009 paid into court by the defendants pursuant to the Order of Mayo JA dated September 27, 1995, as security for the plaintiff's costs of this appeal. For some unexplainable reason, the plaintiff refused to join in with the defendants in securing the release to the defendants' solicitors of the money in court. 8. Such refusal is wholly inexplicable; and counsel for the plaintiff was unable to offer any argument even to explain, let alone justify, it. Apparently those were his instructions. How it was thought appropriate by his solicitors, they being officers of the court, to pass on to counsel such instructions is a mystery. Anyway, we move on from that in the hope and expectation of better things in future. 9. All we need to say is that the money in court and interest thereon shall be released to the defendants' solicitors forthwith. 10. It remains only to hear counsel on the question of the costs of this morning. [Counsel address the Court] 11. There is no opposition to Mr Scott's application for the costs of today; and those we award to the defendants, also to be taxed on a party and party basis.
Representation: Mr John Scott (instructed by M/s Sinclair Roche & Temperley) for the appellants/defendants Mr Michael K W Liu (instructed by M/s P C Woo & Co) for the respondent/plaintiff |
Other judgments that cite this case